Soy is a great source of protein (the stuff about soy products leading to gynecomastia has been refuted pretty solidly).

Peanut, soy, and flax oils are great sources of vitamin E, flaxseed oil is a great source of Omega-3 ALA.

Chicken and turkey should be all the way to the left of the "EAT" category, considering every pro-lifter/builder/athlete under the sun that I follow (that isn't a Vegetarian) eats chicken like they drink water.

Palm Oil has the same effects that Trans Fats do.

A number of the fruits he lists as bad for being high-sugar also contain fiber which entirely affects the release of the sugar into the bloodstream. Bananas, for example, are amazing due to their Potassium content and aren't actually that high in sugar (roughly 10% of total weight in grams, for an average banana containing ~12-15g sugars and 3-5g fiber, plus 300-400mg Potassium). I do mostly agree with his Veggies & Fruits scale, however, because I do agree one should be consuming lots of green/fibrous veggies and eating fruits sparingly.

Skipping legumes is just silly. Rinse them if you're that concerned. They're an amazing source of fiber.

I skip all grains but that's just me, won't fault him for that - the chart is OK there.

Talking about "microtoxins" and then saying that Unpasteurized Milk is an EAT is hilarious. Skipping cheese because of mold is similarly hilarious.

Garlic, Onion, Black Pepper are all 100% OK. Sea Salt and Table Salt are the same frigging thing.

A few of the Sugar Alcohols have published adverse effects such as bloating, diarrhea, and other wonderful gastrointestinal issues. Typically depends on the individual. Plus they're still empty calories. Personal bias, however, as I avoid sugars like they contained plague.

I say "it's poop" because though it is more-or-less OK there are a number of random red flags or just "stupid things" in there to make me skip past the guy's plan altogether, out of concern that he's trying to sell me shit or that he just doesn't have an actual clue but is trying to make a buck off the whole "healthy living" thing.

One obvious red flag is that anything genetically modified is in the “never eat” category; there's no plausible mechanism for most GMOs to be any less healthy than the traditionally-modified strains, and there's no good evidence that GMOs are less healthy than the traditionally-modified strains.

Similarly, there's evidence that organic food is no better for you than non-organic food (although there are reasons other than health effects to prefer organic foods).

In reading up on nutrition I've been running across confliting information, like wither or not grains are bad for you, if you should eat fish, and etc. I take a grain of salt about stuff I read online.

There are a lot of fad diets out there, and anyone can come up with a "new" diet plan.

Soy is a great source of protein (the stuff about soy products leading to gynecomastia has been refuted pretty solidly).

Peanut, soy, and flax oils are great sources of vitamin E, flaxseed oil is a great source of Omega-3 ALA.

Chicken and turkey should be all the way to the left of the "EAT" category, considering every pro-lifter/builder/athlete under the sun that I follow (that isn't a Vegetarian) eats chicken like they drink water.

Palm Oil has the same effects that Trans Fats do.

A number of the fruits he lists as bad for being high-sugar also contain fiber which entirely affects the release of the sugar into the bloodstream. Bananas, for example, are amazing due to their Potassium content and aren't actually that high in sugar (roughly 10% of total weight in grams, for an average banana containing ~12-15g sugars and 3-5g fiber, plus 300-400mg Potassium). I do mostly agree with his Veggies & Fruits scale, however, because I do agree one should be consuming lots of green/fibrous veggies and eating fruits sparingly.

Skipping legumes is just silly. Rinse them if you're that concerned. They're an amazing source of fiber.

I skip all grains but that's just me, won't fault him for that - the chart is OK there.

Talking about "microtoxins" and then saying that Unpasteurized Milk is an EAT is hilarious. Skipping cheese because of mold is similarly hilarious.

Garlic, Onion, Black Pepper are all 100% OK. Sea Salt and Table Salt are the same frigging thing.

A few of the Sugar Alcohols have published adverse effects such as bloating, diarrhea, and other wonderful gastrointestinal issues. Typically depends on the individual. Plus they're still empty calories. Personal bias, however, as I avoid sugars like they contained plague.

I say "it's poop" because though it is more-or-less OK there are a number of random red flags or just "stupid things" in there to make me skip past the guy's plan altogether, out of concern that he's trying to sell me shit or that he just doesn't have an actual clue but is trying to make a buck off the whole "healthy living" thing.

I would say everything you pointed out as a concern accept for the palm oil and fruit his concern isn't that the food itself is inherently unhealthy but the preparation or processing makes it very susceptible to unhealthy molds or filled with pesticides or unhealthy preservatives.

Honestly you don't seem to be that far apart from what this diet is proposing. Like I said the biggest difference seems to be his large concern for the effects of molds, and pesticides and preservatives.

I would say everything you pointed out as a concern accept for the palm oil and fruit his concern isn't that the food itself is inherently unhealthy but the preparation or processing makes it very susceptible to unhealthy molds or filled with pesticides or unhealthy preservatives.

Honestly you don't seem to be that far apart from what this diet is proposing. Like I said the biggest difference seems to be his large concern for the effects of molds, and pesticides and preservatives.

None of those are true concerns in the USA outside of edge-cases where some strawberries from Mexico are rancid or something.

Keep that in mind as well, again, he's trying to sell you overpriced shit (just read the comments on his products) and his bio is questionable ("didn't use calories or exercise to lose weight" is clearly and factually incorrect - he may not have counted, but he still reduced intake or increased output, period).

Note that attacking the speaker doesn't change the message, and I'm not trying to advocate that you take him for less than his word based on his person - though I admit a re-read makes it sound like that. So I will point out it is very important to note that there are some "Avoids" in the very products he sells. People have called him out on this in comments on his site. So if we stick with the message instead of the man, the message is twisted by his own product line - he sells shit that he says to avoid.

You may also be, as you said, drinking the Kool-Aid. I can't blame you, or anyone, as at first glance the information seems rather compelling. Line-by-line reading and response, as I went through in some manner earlier, breaks that apart pretty easily though. Then checking his products and the comments regarding ingredients just breaks it entirely.

Hmm..see here is my problem. You can't just say molds, and pesticides and preservatives aren't a problem here in the US and expect me to just take that as a fact. On the other hand that is exactly what he is doing on the other side. I just haven't seen anything one way or the other to help me decide. I have seen interviews with him and clearly he has said he is very sensitive to the effects of molds so clearly he has a personal bias on the matter.

…I have seen interviews with him and clearly he has said he is very sensitive to the effects of molds so clearly he has a personal bias on the matter.

How does he know?

Unless he has an acute and severe (or, at least, amenable to objective analysis) reaction to "moulds", it's quite likely that he isn't very sensitive to the effects of moulds but rather believes that he is. Because he's fallen afoul of one of the myriad cognitive biases that are the reasons why the plural of anecdote is not data.

Which is why the whole supplementation/diet area is so full of conflicting recommendations. For example, I'd guess that out of the set of people who buy multivitamin supplements (without a doctor's prescription), none have a clinical deficiency in the form of rickets, scurvy, or the like - the set of people who buy multivitamins care about their health and are affluent enough to afford $20-$30/month on non-essentials, so probably eat a sufficient diet anyway. Which means that they're looking for an incremental improvement on some aspect of health, which offers an astoundingly broad range of possible metrics, which, in turn, gives huge scope for cognitive biases to influence their observations.

If you already eat a reasonable diet and do reasonable exercise you're already going to be pretty healthy. There's just not much improvement tweaking the diet, taking extra vitamins, or really any intervention can make, so in order to actually distinguish between different tweaks you need a huge powerful study.

…I have seen interviews with him and clearly he has said he is very sensitive to the effects of molds so clearly he has a personal bias on the matter.

How does he know?

Unless he has an acute and severe (or, at least, amenable to objective analysis) reaction to "moulds", it's quite likely that he isn't very sensitive to the effects of moulds but rather believes that he is. Because he's fallen afoul of one of the myriad cognitive biases that are the reasons why the plural of anecdote is not data.

Which is why the whole supplementation/diet area is so full of conflicting recommendations. For example, I'd guess that out of the set of people who buy multivitamin supplements (without a doctor's prescription), none have a clinical deficiency in the form of rickets, scurvy, or the like - the set of people who buy multivitamins care about their health and are affluent enough to afford $20-$30/month on non-essentials, so probably eat a sufficient diet anyway. Which means that they're looking for an incremental improvement on some aspect of health, which offers an astoundingly broad range of possible metrics, which, in turn, gives huge scope for cognitive biases to influence their observations.

If you already eat a reasonable diet and do reasonable exercise you're already going to be pretty healthy. There's just not much improvement tweaking the diet, taking extra vitamins, or really any intervention can make, so in order to actually distinguish between different tweaks you need a huge powerful study.

I have seen a few interviews with him and clearly he did have some acute reaction to mold in his house at some point. Since then he says 'he knows' what it feels like when mold is affecting to him. I agree that isn't very scientific although I'm sure he would admit the same thing. As for the fact that he doesn't like GMO I would say it's more again do to how GMO crops are raised and how he doesn't like pesticides. Also I know I have heard him talk about Monsato and I know he thinks they are pretty evil.

I have to say though after hearing you guys talk about it he is basically paleo with kinda being a hypocondriac about things. Although I know he is very positive on some drugs as well. I know he thinks caffeine is fine and I saw an interview stating he takes Modafinil.

One of the things about him I like is he seems like an average joe who has spent a lot of time researching this stuff for himself and is just sharing what he has found.

If you already eat a reasonable diet and do reasonable exercise you're already going to be pretty healthy. There's just not much improvement tweaking the diet, taking extra vitamins, or really any intervention can make,

Conclusion In this large prevention trial of male physicians, daily multivitamin supplementation modestly but significantly reduced the risk of total cancer.

This is a very recent study that you might not have been familiar with, but that just underscores the folly of people being too damn sure of their opinions in an area where we are still constantly learning.

I would also note that you misrepresented the conclusion of your prior link:

RAOF wrote:

Similarly, there's evidence that organic food is no better for you than non-organic food (although there are reasons other than health effects to prefer organic foods).

That meta-study says there's no strong evidence that organic food is more nutritious, but goes further:

Quote:

Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

If you already eat a reasonable diet and do reasonable exercise you're already going to be pretty healthy. There's just not much improvement tweaking the diet, taking extra vitamins, or really any intervention can make,

Conclusion In this large prevention trial of male physicians, daily multivitamin supplementation modestly but significantly reduced the risk of total cancer.

Um, no. That seems to support my thesis - the impact of taking the daily multivitamin reduced cancer incidence by 1.7 incidents per thousand person-years, from 18.3 to 17.0. Also there was no significant difference in the rate of cancer deaths (although that was close to statistical significance).

I'm very happy to claim this as “not very much improvement”. Even more so because in context my claim ended with: “so in order to actually distinguish between different tweaks you need a huge powerful study”. Linking to a huge, powerful study that finds, at the edge of statical significance, a small decrease in cancer is hardly a devastating rebuttal.

Gisboth wrote:

Quote:

Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

While similarly, “but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small”. So, while eating organic foods is indeed likely to expose you to less pesticide residue, it's not less likely to expose you to pesticide residue over the allowable limits.

The question then becomes “does consumption of pesticides at levels under the allowable limits have adverse health effects”. If the answer to that question is ‘yes’ then we should probably lower the allowable limits.

Antibiotics, and hence antibiotic resistant bacteria, in factory-farmed animals is a significant problem. One that's not uniquely solved by organic produce, of course, but organic meat does tend to correlate to better treated animals.

Omi43221 wrote:

One of the things about him I like is he seems like an average joe who has spent a lot of time researching this stuff for himself and is just sharing what he has found.

I don't understand how this is a selling point? “What I like about my structural engineer is that they're an educated layperson” doesn't make much sense to me. He's not likely to be any more correct because he's not formally educated!

Um, no. That seems to support my thesis - the impact of taking the daily multivitamin reduced cancer incidence by 1.7 incidents per thousand person-years, from 18.3 to 17.0.

Right. A reduction of 8% in total cancers. Disregarding prostate cancers (which were not impacted by the multivitamin regimen), there was a 12% reduction in total cancers. For those without a family history of cancers, there was a reduction of 16% in total cancers.

Clearly, to you and and others, that is a trivial reduction not worth mentioning.

Others might feel that taking a daily multivitamin is not an odious burden for a modest but demonstrated reduction in total cancers.

You may feel that Dr. E. Robert Greenberg, an affiliate at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, is kidding himself when he says, "“Other than quitting smoking, there’s not much else out there that has shown it will reduce your cancer risk by nearly 10 percent.”

Perhaps it also bears repeating that this study was of one of the most highly educated demographics in society, with a higher knowledge of human biology than any other large demographic. This was reflected, for example, in the study participants having a lower incidence of smoking than the general population. I would also presume that this demographic gets better medical care than any other large demographic in society.

Quote:

I'm very happy to claim this as “not very much improvement”. Even more so because in context my claim ended with: “so in order to actually distinguish between different tweaks you need a huge powerful study”. Linking to a huge, powerful study that finds, at the edge of statical significance, a small decrease in cancer is hardly a devastating rebuttal.

Rather than a study following just under 15K male physicians over fourteen years, you seem to be saying you would be more impressed by a study of 200 persons over six months. Whatever floats your boat.

Quote:

While similarly, “but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small”. So, while eating organic foods is indeed likely to expose you to less pesticide residue, it's not less likely to expose you to pesticide residue over the allowable limits.

In my version of English, "difference in risk is small" is not the same as "no difference in risk." YMMV

Quote:

The question then becomes “does consumption of pesticides at levels under the allowable limits have adverse health effects”.

I think that RAOF is right and Gisboth is wrong about this study. RAOF is right that the effect is quite modest. Other studies, some with greater statistical power, have looked at this same question and concluded that multivitamins offer no protective effect. As important, what the study is measuring is total cancer incidence. Cancer is a family of diseases, and different types will be promoted by different factors; hence, this measurement doesn't seem quite coherent, and the study does not find a significant reduction for any specific type of cancer.

The benefits and harms of multivitamin supplementation are the subject of many studies. When there are many studies, there will be some false positive correlations, and the effects here seem too small and too nebulous to be meaningful.

In JAMA, where the study was published, there's a critical comment about the study by Bach and Lewis. They write:

Quote:

The authors did not find that the supplement prevented any particular cancer preferentially, and there was no evidence of an association between adherence and the protective effect. The vitamin supplement was not demonstrated to reduce overall or cancer-specific mortality, although the authors observed nonsignificant reductions in both.

Following online publication to coincide with a presentation at a national meeting, the study results were reported widely in the media. Importantly, this report is a single entry in a crowded field of studies. The majority of these studies (many of which are cited by the authors) suggest no effect of vitamin supplementation on cancer risk and some, notably, show evidence of harm. Given this context, the marginal statistical significance and the perplexing and somewhat counterintuitive nature of the study findings make drawing any firm conclusion premature. Thus, it may be inappropriate to recommend that men take multivitamins to prevent cancer.

They go on to make several specific points, including questioning the statistical validity of the findings. They say that the study is trying measure 28 different things. When you measure 28 different things, chances are that one of them will be significantly different from average with a p value slightly less than 0.05.

I wasn't even trying to impugn the results of the study, although I too have read of other multivitamin studies which show no effect, or harmful effect.

Gisboth isn't arguing against my thesis at all. My thesis being:

RAOF wrote:

If you already eat a reasonable diet and do reasonable exercise you're already going to be pretty healthy. There's just not much improvement tweaking the diet, taking extra vitamins, or really any intervention can make, so in order to actually distinguish between different tweaks you need a huge powerful study.

(Emphasis added)

Gisboth responded with a link to a huge, powerful study, that showed - if you take the results at face value - that if you took ten average people and gave them multivitamins for their whole 100 year lifespan then you would observe one fewer cancer than you would otherwise expect.

That sort of effect is impossible for a single guy (you know, like what we were talking about) to observe in his self-experimentation. We're generally too healthy - with some obvious exceptions, the effects that various diets are trying to generate are small changes around the margin. The obvious exceptions being: you should exercise, eat a non-stupid diet, and not eat too much. If you do that you've got 99% of the benefit; it doesn't make a lot of sense to fret about the extra 1% unless you want to be an Olympic athlete.

that doesn't mean "cheese is mold." All it means that "Cheese which tastes like vomit has mold in it."

Cheese is basically milk thats been curdled by the waste products of bacterial metabolism. So depending on your perspective you could probably say its mold. It would be more accurate to say that mold is an essential component of many (all?) cheese.

that doesn't mean "cheese is mold." All it means that "Cheese which tastes like vomit has mold in it."

Cheese is basically milk thats been curdled by the waste products of bacterial metabolism. So depending on your perspective you could probably say its mold. It would be more accurate to say that mold is an essential component of many (all?) cheese.

only if you refdefine "mold" as "bacteria" instead of "fungi." that's not a matter of perspective. I mean, is vinegar "mold" too"?

Does anyone have good science on the nutritional value of going vegan? Preferably something other than all the biased sources my annoying vegan friend won't shut up about. Actually, not even sure I want to call her a friend anymore since turning into a stuck up douche who constantly won't shut up about it.

She wants me to watch Forks over knives and all those movies, but I've found research saying things like where the movie mentioned certain countries reduced meat consumption and became healthier actually increased their consumption of fish and other things like that.

Does anyone have good science on the nutritional value of going vegan? Preferably something other than all the biased sources my annoying vegan friend won't shut up about. Actually, not even sure I want to call her a friend anymore since turning into a stuck up douche who constantly won't shut up about it.

I think you could find a vegan diet that would give you everything you need, but you might find it unappetizing.

Or do you want to know if being vegan makes you healthier? To that, I would say "No". You could get just as fat or be just as unhealthy as the guy who lives on steak and potatoes.

It's more of they say all meat is bad and humans weren't made for meat, it's unnatural because we have to cook it, etc.

I think they said American heart association recommended no meat or something like that. I'm just tired of hearing crap like any meat puts you at risk for all this stuff and if you're a vegan you're good.

It's more of they say all meat is bad and humans weren't made for meat, it's unnatural because we have to cook it, etc.

I think they said American heart association recommended no meat or something like that. I'm just tired of hearing crap like any meat puts you at risk for all this stuff and if you're a vegan you're good.

Well, it is easy enough to throw facts back at them.

But, what would happen is that your vegan friend would consider you as much of a d-bag about eating meat as you consider her that way for saying that eating meat is bad.

My advice...just don't talk about it. She will believe what she wants to believe.

The easy rule of thumb is to shop the outside aisles of the grocery store and skip everything in the middle.

Or, what you eat should be as unprocessed as possible.

The low fat diet is not a good one; fats are necessary nutrients. Good fats include those found in fish oil, olive oil, cocoanut oil, walnuts, almonds. Most of your vegetable oils are highly processed and contain a lot of omega-6 trans fatty acids. Margarine is bad for you, eat butter instead. Saturated fats are vital to your existence as they form the protective sheath around your nerve cells. They also give you that "I'm full" feeling so you don't just keep on eating.

If you eat right, vitamin supplements shouldn't be necessary but taking a multivitamin won't hurt you. Linus Pauling took handfuls of vitamin C every day and lived to be almost 100 IIRC but research hasn't found evidence to support the idea of taking mega doses of vitamin C.

My doctor said almost everyone has a vitamin D deficiency. Only recently have they been routinely testing people for it; the older test was too expensive. I was found to be low despite my farmer tan so I take a 2,000 iu pill every day. Haven't noticed anything different. Maybe I need to take more.

My wife has to give herself vitamin B12 shots; her digestive system can't absorb it from food anymore. Before she found this out, her energy levels were way down. This is not uncommon, particularly as people age and I believe it affects more women than men.

And don't worry about eating foods high in cholesterol if you are a normal, healthy person. It's more important to avoid inflammatory foods like those high in Omega-6. That's what will harm your arteries and cause plaque buildup.

Sugar is bad; try to limit your intake. But it's very hard to do; sugar or high fructose corn syrup is added to almost everything these days. And your body converts carbohydrates to sugar in your body which then either get converted to fuel (glycogen) or fat. Since most of us aren't running a marathon while chomping down a bag of Doritos and a Big Gulp, most of it ends up expanding the waistline.

short version of "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" he explains the biochemistry going on when your body processes carbs/sugar. http://youtu.be/tdMjKEncojQ

Humans have been eating bread for thousands of years but the bread of today hardly resembles that of ancient Rome or even Colonial America. The wheat has been genetically modified either in the lab or the old fashioned way to produce higher yields and be disease resistant. And most bread sold at the grocery store is just another bag of sugar; being made from highly refined flour that breaks down quickly and with little or no fiber at all. And why is there sugar in bread?

If you want healthy, lean meat, you buy beef from grass-fed cows that weren't injected with antibiotics(low level doses to cause weight gain) or hormones. But most beef cattle is headed off to the feed lot where they are fed a grain diet in order to quickly fatten them up. something to think about when reaching for the last croissant.

I don't have anything of science to add, other than my own experience.

A few years ago I was diagnosed with MS. Most of the symptoms I had, I just attributed to old car wreck injuries and getting older (51). Most of the symptoms were annoying but didn't impact me seriously until about 2 years ago. All my symptoms started getting progressively worse.

Long story short, about 6 weeks ago I made some drastic changes to my diet and lifestyle. I went to a vegan type diet. No meat, no dairy, no oils, no processed foods. Basically, fruits, vegetables and whole grains. I started taking a multivitamin and generous amounts of B12 supplements.

Thanks for sharing your story. I have a question for you. What was your typical diet like before you made the change?

I travel quite a bit for work. Fast food of some sort when I'm out of town, or maybe restaurant food. At home was a little better when we cooked ourselves but we still ate a lot of crap. Frozen pizzas, chips, cookies. I'm from Texas, if it's Mexican food or anything fried I love it. Lot's of cheese, melty cheese makes everything better. Before I started all this I don't think I can remember the last time I ate an apple or banana.

Part of the challenge I have now is preparation. It's not as easy as opening a box, package, or can. Especially vegetables.

Over all I've been happy with the change. I've never felt hungry or deprived at all. I've been very conscious to try and incorporate a variety of different foods. There's a lot of recipes on line and in books and it's been fun trying new things I never would have thought of.

I think it was a combination of things. Over the last year, for whatever reason, meat has just lost it's appeal to me. I'm not against eating meat by any means. I just didn't enjoy it like I used to.

Since I was diagnosed I've done a lot of research. Treatment for MS is not that complicated. They put you on some form of interferon drug and then once or twice a year you go have an MRI to see if the legions on your brain and spinal column have increased. If you have a particular bad relapse or flare up they give you some brutal IV steroids. Other than that, a person is pretty left to his own devices in finding things that might help.

A common re-occurring theme I found in a lot of stuff I watched and read was that this kind of diet has had some success, not only with people with MS, but also other neurological diseases and people with cancer. So I figured, why not? Worst case I get healthier and loose a little weight.

The second link isn't really nutritional in nature. It's about most of the herbal products tested not meeting label claims, and how that plays out in terms of what you may and may not be ingesting.

An article on the efficacy and nutritional support of herbal products would be, however. IIRC, there's a fair amount of solid info on herbal nutrition and efficacy on the alternative section at NIH.gov.

I wonder if US will ever jump on board with this. I think the biggest problem will be fruit and fruit juices seeing how the low carb diet wants you to eat fruit sparringly and fruit juice pretty much not at all vs the current USDA suggestion of 6-7 servings of fruit a day.